Morton v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01428 · 2023-10-03 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Michael M. Anello (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:48Z · confidence high

The County Defendants filed an ex parte motion to stay a September 20, 2023 discovery order compelling the production of CIRB reports, arguing the documents were privileged. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion to stay but ordered the County to submit proposed redactions for in camera review, effectively staying the immediate production pending that review.

What the court decided	The model
Denial of Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying the Court’s September 20, 2023 Discovery Order “For the above reasons, the Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying the Court’s September 20, 2023 Discovery Order [Dkt. No. 146] is DENIED.”	agree with court The court applied the four-factor test for a stay (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to other parties, public interest). It found the County unlikely to succeed on the merits because it had previously failed to establish privilege in a similar context (June 27 Order) and that a District Judge had already overruled its objection to that prior order. It also found that redactions could mitigate harm and that delay would prejudice plaintiffs. This is a defensible application of the stay factors based on the procedural history recited in the order.
Ordering submission of documents for in camera review and stay of the Discovery Order pending that review “The September 20 Discovery Order is hereby STAYED until further Order of this Court regarding the proposed redactions.”	agree with court The court granted the County a final opportunity to propose specific redactions for in camera review. This is a standard procedural mechanism to resolve privilege disputes without fully staying discovery or forcing immediate production of potentially privileged material. It balances the need for discovery with the protection of privileged information.

What the court decided

The model

Denial of Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying the Court’s September 20, 2023 Discovery Order

“For the above reasons, the Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying the Court’s September 20, 2023 Discovery Order [Dkt. No. 146] is DENIED.”

agree with court
The court applied the four-factor test for a stay (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to other parties, public interest). It found the County unlikely to succeed on the merits because it had previously failed to establish privilege in a similar context (June 27 Order) and that a District Judge had already overruled its objection to that prior order. It also found that redactions could mitigate harm and that delay would prejudice plaintiffs. This is a defensible application of the stay factors based on the procedural history recited in the order.

Ordering submission of documents for in camera review and stay of the Discovery Order pending that review

“The September 20 Discovery Order is hereby STAYED until further Order of this Court regarding the proposed redactions.”

agree with court
The court granted the County a final opportunity to propose specific redactions for in camera review. This is a standard procedural mechanism to resolve privilege disputes without fully staying discovery or forcing immediate production of potentially privileged material. It balances the need for discovery with the protection of privileged information.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for a stay and applies it to the facts presented. It relies on the prior procedural history (the June 27 Order and the District Judge's ruling on the Rule 72 objection) to support its finding that the County is unlikely to succeed on the merits. The decision to require in camera review of redactions is a reasonable procedural step to resolve the privilege dispute. The order is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARILYN MORTON, et al., Case No.: 21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. MOTION TO STAY AND DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al. , DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA 15 Defendants. REVIEW 16 [Dkt. No. 146] 17 19 Before the Court is the County Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for an Order 20 Staying the Court’s September 20, 2023 Discovery Order re Motion to Compel Pending 21 District Judge Review. Dkt. No. 146. 22 On September 20, 2023, the undersigned issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion 23 to compel CIRB Reports relating to in-custody suicides over a five-year period, finding the 24 County had not carried its burden to show that the documents were protected from 25 disclosure by the attorney-client, official information, deliberative process, or law 26 enforcement investigatory privileges, the work product doctrine, or HIPAA and similar 27 medical privacy statutes. See Dkt. No. 144 (hereafter the “September 20 Discovery 28 Order”). The County Defendants indicate they will move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 1 Procedure 72 to set aside the September 20 Discovery Order on or before October 4, 2023, 2 the same date by which they were ordered to produce the disputed CIRB Reports. See id. 3 at 27. 4 When considering whether to grant a stay, the Court applies a four-factor test: 5 “(1) whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits; 6 (2) whether the movant has made a showing of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted; 7 (3) whether the granting of the stay would substantially harm the other parties; and 8 (4) whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest.” See In re Republic of 9 Ecuador, No. 10-MC-80087 CRB (NC), 2012 WL 13187177, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 10 2012) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)). Having considered each of these 11 factors, the Court DENIES the Ex Parte Application. 12 First, the Court concludes the County Defendants are not likely to succeed on the 13 merits. On June 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the 14 CIRB Report and related documents pertaining to Joseph Morton’s death. Dkt. No. 97 15 (hereafter the “June 27 Discovery Order”). Thereafter, the District Judge overruled the 16 County Defendants’ Rule 72 objection to the June 27 Discovery Order. Dkt. No. 131. The 17 September 20 Discovery Order involves the same issues of attorney-client privilege raised 18 in the County Defendants’ unsuccessful challenge to the undersigned’s June 27 Discovery 19 Order. See Dkt. Nos. 105, 131. 20 Second, the Court finds that by applying targeted, appropriate redactions, the 21 potential injury to the County from disclosure of its assertedly privileged information is 22 ameliorated. Third, given the impending fact discovery cutoff and other deadlines that 23 were imposed after the County Defendants’ prior unsuccessful Rule 72 challenge, the Court 24 concludes that the other parties to the action would be unfairly and substantially prejudiced 25 by a stay. Fourth, the Court concludes that the public interest is not served by further delay 26 in the production of these documents. 27 The Court will, however, provide the County Defendants with a final opportunity to 28 propose specific and targeted redactions to communications they assert are protected by | attorney-client privilege. By not later than October 10, 2023, the County Defendants 2 submit to the undersigned its proposed redactions to the CIRB Reports for in camera 3 || review. 4 For the above reasons, the Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying the Court’s 5 September 20, 2023 Discovery Order [Dkt. No. 146] is DENIED. The September 20 6 || Discovery Order is hereby STAYED until further Order of this Court regarding the 7 || proposed redactions. 8 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: October 3, 2023 _—_— 10 Tb Lh, 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28